Trusting the Bible

[peanutbutter63]

I haven't had an opportunity to read all the messages, nor have I read the entire bible but I am of the opinion that scripture(be it the koran or the bible) has to be read and understood for today's requirements and conditions. Much within it would be impossible to implement today without wreaking havoc and confusion within the human mind

 

[savagewind]

"'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'" 2 Chronicles 18:21

Is it possible that some deception was added to the Bible for the purpose of making false prophets obvious?

It is written "love is not provoked" but love is provoked. Anyone who teaches that love is not provoked is false. That is how to tell who is trustworthy in Jesus Christ's name.

 

[savagewind]

Why not see the evidence that love does not provoke? The meaning of to provoke is to stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone. Do we see God provoking anyone? We can't even see what God does. It is written though what God has done. Is it written that The God has been angry? Is it written that The God has made anyone angry? Provoke has a negative connotation. But it can also mean to give rise to any emotion. Like love perhaps? Does God make people love him? No! For "love does not provoke".

 

[JesusBeliever]

If the Bible is not 100% accurate in what it says, then how can you trust it at all? If small, insignificant verse #6 is wrong, then how can you put your faith in the belief that immensely important verse #22 is right? So isn't inerrancy mandatory?

Hi there,

Have you ever heard people refer to "the spirit of the law"? Because I think this is applicable to the Bible and also explains why God inspired it's writers to write it the way they did, saying the same thing over and over, this way and that way, this way and that. In order to preserve the Spirit of the Bible, so that those who sincerely seek it will find it!

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2Co 3:6

 

[metis]

Hi there,

Have you ever heard people refer to "the spirit of the law"? Because I think this is applicable to the Bible and also explains why God inspired it's writers to write it the way they did, saying the same thing over and over, this way and that way, this way and that. In order to preserve the Spirit of the Bible, so that those who sincerely seek it will find it!

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2Co 3:6

Tell that to a police officer when he gives you a ticket for going 10 miles over the speed limit. The Law is the Law, but what can be at least somewhat variable is interpretation and application of the Law. It would be illogical for me to disobey the Law and then say "I fulfilled the spirit of the Law".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi there,

Have you ever heard people refer to "the spirit of the law"? Because I think this is applicable to the Bible and also explains why God inspired it's writers to write it the way they did, saying the same thing over and over, this way and that way, this way and that. In order to preserve the Spirit of the Bible, so that those who sincerely seek it will find it!

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2Co 3:6

I agree with Metis that this isn't a workable argument for Christianity. It argues for nullification of the law through semantic gymnastics. Most likely by 'Spirit of the Law' Jesus is referring to mercy and overlooking sin. This is an aspect of the Law that is not at first obvious to a reader, so it could be that this is what is meant by the 'Spirit of the Law'. Perhaps Jesus would characterize the spirit of the law as merciful. This is probably based upon various statements by prophets such as "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice," which do not nullify or exclude the law. They highlight a purpose behind it and suggest how it should be interpreted. There is no need to propose that the law has to be nullified in any way. Certainly its a very unworkable argument. You can't fulfill something by ignoring it.

 

[jojom]

Hi there,

Have you ever heard people refer to "the spirit of the law"? Because I think this is applicable to the Bible and also explains why God inspired it's writers to write it the way they did, saying the same thing over and over, this way and that way, this way and that. In order to preserve the Spirit of the Bible, so that those who sincerely seek it will find it!

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2Co 3:6

As I recall reading about the various assemblages of the Bible, one of the determinants for inclusion was agreement. The more a writing agreed with the prevailing theology of the day, or the wishes of the sponsor, the more likely it would be included. Those writings that went against the theology, even in the very least, were rejected. The idea in part was to construct a Bible that reinforced or expanded the theology in a way consistent with the thinking of the current council or whatever authority was then in power, which was sometimes done by vote, such as at the Council of Trent. So, it's not surprising that certain ideas are repeated over and over.

 

[metis]

As I recall reading about the various assemblages of the Bible, one of the determinants for inclusion was agreement. The more a writing agreed with the prevailing theology of the day, or the wishes of the sponsor, the more likely it would be included. Those writings that went against the theology, even in the very least, were rejected. The idea in part was to construct a Bible that reinforced or expanded the theology in a way consistent with the thinking of the current council or whatever authority was then in power, which was sometimes done by vote, such as at the Council of Trent. So, it's not surprising that certain ideas are repeated over and over.

And the irony is that it didn't start out that way as it appears that at first the early church used the Pharisees' approach of letting people read whatever letters they had and wanted to have, and then comment on them verbally ("sermon") or through writing (midrashim). However, this approach opened the door for "heretical" groups, so a canon was the "answer", which necessitated narrowing the acceptable letters down and eliminating the others.

 

[Unification]

If the Bible is not 100% accurate in what it says, then how can you trust it at all? If small, insignificant verse #6 is wrong, then how can you put your faith in the belief that immensely important verse #22 is right? So isn't inerrancy mandatory?

If it's not written with coded DNA and such on the two tablets of stone (western and eastern hemispheres of the brain)... And on ones conscience mind, and rather one has to rely on and exalt a book poorly translated and altered numerous times, interpret allegories and parables and internal meaning fundamentally, literally, outwardly, and mythologically to control and oppress others with... There are problems.

 

[savagewind]

If it's not written with coded DNA and such on the two tablets of stone (western and eastern hemispheres of the brain)... And on ones conscience mind, and rather one has to rely on and exalt a book poorly translated and altered numerous times, interpret allegories and parables and internal meaning fundamentally, literally, outwardly, and mythologically to control and oppress others with... There are problems.

I shall be amazed when enough people say there is a problem and that problems need fixing.

I have heard this week on the forum that it takes only 10% of the people to initiate change. The previous post is the first one I have seen yet.

 

[Unification]

Not such a far cry. And as I don't use Christian translations, I'm not familiar with the various renderings of Isaiah 45:7. The verse itself is pretty straightforward in the Hebrew, so I'm not sure how many ways there could be to read that.


I'm not really sure where you're coming from. I'm Jewish. I believe that G-d meant the Bible for the Jews and that's why it was given to them and is about them. And I don't have any problems with translations as I use the original Hebrew as do the vast majority of my co-denominationlists. So as far as I'm concerned, He accomplished exactly what He intended.
The problem of 105 translations is a Christian one. And they were not meant to have our Holy Book. So if they have a problem with interpretation, well, that's fine with me.

There is nothing holy about a book.

Why do you need a dummies how to instruction manual on how to please "God?"

Wouldn't you be created and equipped with everything internally that you'd need?

It was meant for "Jews." A "Jew" is one "inward." One who wouldn't interpret them outwardly, mythologically, literally, and in vain. There were no such labels or a heritage called a "Jew" while they were written anyhow.

Is "God" a male?

 

[Tumah]

There is nothing holy about a book.

Why do you need a dummies how to instruction manual on how to please "God?"

Wouldn't you be created and equipped with everything internally that you'd need?

It was meant for "Jews." A "Jew" is one "inward." One who wouldn't interpret them outwardly, mythologically, literally, and in vain. There were no such labels or a heritage called a "Jew" while they were written anyhow.

Is "God" a male?

Yes, I'm familiar with how you interpret the Bible. I disagree with you.
Thanks for the response.

 

[psychoslice]

There is nothing holy about a book.

Why do you need a dummies how to instruction manual on how to please "God?"

Wouldn't you be created and equipped with everything internally that you'd need?

It was meant for "Jews." A "Jew" is one "inward." One who wouldn't interpret them outwardly, mythologically, literally, and in vain. There were no such labels or a heritage called a "Jew" while they were written anyhow.

Is "God" a male?

I like that, it makes sense.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the Bible is not 100% accurate in what it says, then how can you trust it at all? If small, insignificant verse #6 is wrong, then how can you put your faith in the belief that immensely important verse #22 is right? So isn't inerrancy mandatory?

The problem is that "the Bible" does not exist in a vacuum. There is no inerrant Bible that we can trust - so it's a non-issue. Even the designation 'the Bible' is an artificial one because God did not give humanity one Bible, but many -- there are single collections of books that people call 'the Bible,' like the King James or the NIV in the West - but these 'Bibles' merely represent translations of collections of texts that are arbitrarily chosen by scholars (and *gasp* sometimes pastors and publishers according to marketability and theological bias).

So if there were a single group of texts rather than hundreds of translations of thousands of fragments (no two match exactly, by the way, at least in the New Testament) of manuscripts, then yes, inerrancy would be tenable.

As it is, the doctrine of inerrancy is sort of comical in that pastors can drill this meaningless doctrine into people's heads. It's meaningless because there is no inerrant text.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, that's right.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread in the name of France!

 

[jojom]

The problem is that "the Bible" does not exist in a vacuum. There is no inerrant Bible that we can trust - so it's a non-issue.

Then I take it the Bible is untrustworthy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then I take it the Bible is untrustworthy.

It's just as trustworthy as Bach's symphonies or the Mona Lisa.

 

[jojom]

It's just as trustworthy as Bach's symphonies or the Mona Lisa.

Not at all then. Gotcha; I don't put any trust in the Bible either.


.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not at all then. Gotcha; I don't put any trust in the Bible either.

No, you don't "get me" at all.

You are quite mistaken when you associate your artlessness with me.

If you can't trust the Mona Lisa or Bach's masterpieces, and therefore cannot trust Scripture at all, you're beyond unqualified to even make that kind of judgment.